Designing NGSS-Aligned Curriculum Materials William R. Penuel Brian J. Reiser University of Colorado, Boulder Northwestern University The Need for New Curriculum Materials for the NGSS The Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a bold new vision for K-12 science education (National Research Council, 2012) that has guided the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and other new Framework-derived state standards. As of November 2017, 19 states had formally adopted the NGSS, accounting for 36% of all U.S. children in public schools (NSTA, 2018). At the heart of these reforms is the Framework’s definition of science education in terms of three dimensions: science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. The Framework proposes integrating these dimensions to make science and engineering more meaningful to students by engaging them in science and engineering practices to develop and apply the target science ideas (Schwarz, Passmore, & Reiser, 2017). Realizing the vision of the Framework and NGSS will require making substantive shifts in curriculum materials to support teachers and students in the necessary instructional shifts (National Research Council, 2015). For example, the Framework calls out the need for curriculum developers to address all three dimensions in lessons and units. This integration requires more than simply including these dimensions as separate areas of attention — engagement in science and engineering practices requires that students’ participation in these practices is directly motivated by their goals of making sense of phenomena or solving problems they have identified (National Research Council, 2012; Reiser, Novak, & McGill, 2017). At the same time, the Framework left open questions about which practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas to feature in lessons and units, in order to ensure that all receive sufficient attention. In addition, while the Framework and others (Fortus & Krajcik, 2012; Fortus, Sutherland Adams, Krajcik, & Reiser, 2015) have called for curriculum developers to consider materials that help students to develop increasingly sophisticated understandings from kindergarten to twelfth grade, it does not offer a completely specified path for doing so. Similarly, while the Framework calls for curriculum that addresses science as a human endeavor that is shaped by and informs historical, cultural, social, and ethical issues, it asks curriculum developers to take up questions of how. At present, curriculum materials that meet these criteria are only beginning to emerge. As of December 2017, Achieve, Inc.’s Science Peer Review Panel1 had published reviews of just seven units across K-12 submitted by teams for review according to the EQuIP rubric (Achieve, 2016), a framework for analyzing materials for alignment to the NGSS. Still, there are a number of units and materials that have been developed and investigated as part of the research on science learning included in the Framework and 1 https://www.nextgenscience.org/peer-review-panel/peer-review-panel-science This paper was commissioned for the committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades 6-12. The committee was convened by the Board on Science Education in Washington, DC with support from the Amgen Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Opinions and statements included in the paper are solely those of the individual author, and are not necessarily adopted, endorsed, or verified as accurate by the Board on Science Education or the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Developing NGSS-Aligned Curriculum Materials 2 prior research synthesis that can inform guidance as to the needed features of new materials and that teams of teachers, local leaders, and researchers can adapt and supplement while new materials are being developed (National Research Council, 2007, 2015). In this paper, we argue for the characteristics of curriculum materials needed that reflect the vision of the Framework, can develop students’ three-dimensional science proficiency, connect to their interests, identities, and experiences, and support teachers in making the necessary shifts in their own practice. We describe the kinds of artifacts students would produce as part of experiencing these new curricula. To illustrate these design features, we describe how these features are embodied in a unit that our team developed and that has been reviewed by Achieve, Inc. Then, we present evidence from studies of materials that partly reflect the new vision because they embody some important aspect of the vision and its core assumptions (Framework, Chapter 2), such as the importance of integrating knowledge and practices, building understanding over time, and promoting equity. Finally, we describe gaps in the evidence base about important curricular features, needed resources for development and implementation, and the kinds of capacities we can build upon but must also develop, in order for all students to experience curriculum materials that reflect the vision of the Framework. Key Features of Materials that Reflect the Vision of the Framework Below, we review key features of curriculum materials that reflect the key assumptions of the Framework for K-12 Science Education. We are able to identify these, because the Framework’s vision grew out of decades of research on children’s science learning. At the same time, there are some major changes required for curriculum materials to reflect that vision that address our growing understanding of what it takes to support meaningful science learning among students from different cultural communities and linguistic backgrounds. Table 1 summarizes the design features we argue reflect the central design approaches needed in curriculum materials necessary to support the Framework and NGSS. These ideas build on arguments for supporting effective learning with reform-based curriculum materials (e.g., Ball & Cohen, 1996; Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, 2008; Roseman & Koppal, 2008; Roseman, Stern, & Koppal, 2010), and prior analyses of the needs of curriculum materials for the Framework and NGSS context (BSCS, 2017; National Research Council, 2015). We review each of these principles in the following sections. This paper was commissioned for the committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades 6-12. The committee was convened by the Board on Science Education in Washington, DC with support from the Amgen Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Opinions and statements included in the paper are solely those of the individual author, and are not necessarily adopted, endorsed, or verified as accurate by the Board on Science Education or the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Developing NGSS-Aligned Curriculum Materials 3 Table 1. Key Features in Curriculum Materials that Support the Framework and NGSS Principles of Instructional Materials Instructional Strategies Common in to Support the Framework and NGSS Prior Instructional Materials Three-dimensional learning: Science Separate treatment of content and and engineering practices build and use 1 process goals; Curriculum and teachers disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting explain and students apply ideas concepts Central role for phenomena and design Phenomena as examples to illustrate 2 challenges ideas that have already been taught Modular lessons and units; individual 3 Designed for incremental sensemaking lessons mapped to standards Logic of instructional sequence clear to 4 Coherent from the students’ perspective curriculum writers and teachers but not students Few supports beyond extension activities for students, little that addresses the need for connecting to 5 Support for equitable participation students’ experiences and identities or for ensuring equitable participation in classroom discussion Supports include common Multiple opportunities for teachers to “misconceptions” of students but not 6 elicit and interpret student thinking how to build on student ideas as resources Text-based supports; thought to be 7 Support for teacher learning separate from, but not integrated with curriculum materials 1. Three-Dimensional learning A central shift in the Framework and NGSS is bringing together science and engineering practices with science ideas in the definition of science literacy, rather than treating “content” and “process” as separate learning goals. Every learning goal is articulated as a performance expectation defined as the use of a science and engineering practice with science ideas (disciplinary core ideas and crosscutting concepts). This move reflects an evolution of earlier reforms in science education to bring the doing of science, articulated as inquiry, into classrooms as a key component of what and how students This paper was commissioned for the committee on Science Investigations and Engineering Design for Grades 6-12. The committee was convened by the Board on Science Education in Washington, DC with support from the Amgen Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Opinions and statements included in the paper are solely those of the individual author, and are not necessarily adopted, endorsed, or verified as accurate by the Board on Science Education or the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Developing NGSS-Aligned Curriculum Materials 4 learn about science (Deboer, 2006). The key step taken in the Framework and NGSS is going beyond viewing